5. On 11 September 1989 the applicants, excluding the third applicant, lodged a civil action with the then Bitola Employment Court of First Instance (Основен суд на здружен труд Битола) applying for the annulment of the decision (“the 1989 decision”) of the agricultural cooperative Rasanec земјоделска задруга (“the cooperative”), dated 26 August 1989, to restructure itself as a socially owned enterprise општествено претпријатие (“the enterprise”). They claimed that the 1989 decision had been adopted without the requisite number of votes of the cooperative’s members and workers being attained. They also maintained that the interests of the cooperative’s members had not been taken into consideration when adopting the 1989 decision which had affected the cooperative property directly. The applicants claimed to be members and founders of the cooperative. The action appears to have been an attempt by the applicants to restore their standing as members of a cooperative to which they had contributed.
6. On 5 February 1991 the Bitola Employment Court of First Instance rejected the applicants’ claim as the cooperative had ceased to exist after the 1989 decision had been recorded on the court’s register.
7. On 30 January 1992 the then Trade Court of Macedonia (Стопански суд на Македонија) upheld the applicants’ appeal and quashed the lower court’s decision.
8. On 4 March 1993 the then Bitola District Trade Court (Окружен Стопански суд Битола) upheld the applicants’ claim and annulled the 1989 decision. It established that, after the 1989 decision, on 21 September 1989 the enterprise had merged with the joint stock company Biljana (“the company”). The court found that the enterprise had been the legal successor of the cooperative and had accordingly undertaken the latter’s rights and obligations. As the company had twice intervened in the proceedings, the court concluded that it had assumed the position of a party being sued as the legal successor of the enterprise. It finally decided that the 1989 decision had been adopted without the necessary number of votes.
9. On 7 July 1993 the Trade Court of Macedonia accepted both parties’ appeals and quashed the above decision. It held that the lower court had erred in establishing the facts concerning the status of the cooperative. It concluded that the proceedings should have been stayed had the cooperative ceased to exist, until its legal successor was eventually able to take over the dispute.
10. On 23 February 1994 the Bitola District Trade Court declared itself incompetent to decide the case. It held that, because of the nature of the dispute it was the Ohrid Municipal Court (Општински суд Охрид) which had jurisdiction to decide the case.
11. On 20 May 1994 the Trade Court of Macedonia quashed the lower court’s decision and referred the case back for re-examination. It held that the Bitola District Trade Court had been competent ratione materiae to decide the case. According to the higher court, the matter in dispute in the case was the change of the cooperative’s status (статусен спор).
12. On 24 June 1994 the Bitola District Trade Court stayed the proceedings as a result of the fact that the cooperative had ceased to exist on 29 January 1992. It was decided that the proceedings would be stayed until the legal successor of the cooperative could take over the dispute.
13. On 29 August 1994 the Trade Court of Macedonia dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision.
14. On 29 June 1995 the applicants requested the court to resume the proceedings against the company, as the legal successor of the cooperative. The proceedings continued against the company.
15. On 15 September 1997 the Ohrid Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) accepted the applicants’ claim and annulled the 1989 decision since it had not been adopted in compliance with the legislation applicable at that time (Association of Farmers Act, Закон за здружување на земјоделците). The court dismissed the company’s argument that the applicants lacked the capacity to act since, under the court’s register, they had been members and founders of the cooperative. The court established that the disputed decision had been adopted without any of the cooperative members having been heard. It annulled the 1989 decision stating that it had served as the legal basis for the transfer and transformation of the cooperative’s property into socially-owned property.
16. On 11 September 1998 the Bitola Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s decision and remitted the case back for renewed consideration. It found that the lower court had incorrectly established the facts concerning, inter alia, the following issues: the applicants’ status as members/founders of the cooperative; the cooperative’s business activity and the body competent to adopt the decision complained of. It also instructed the lower court to hear evidence from the parties.
17. Three hearings were fixed before the first-instance court. On 5 February 1999 the first-instance court accepted the applicants’ claim once more and annulled the 1989 decision. It established that the company was the legal successor of the cooperative and had accordingly had the legal capacity to act in the proceedings; that the cooperative had operated in the field of agriculture and that the applicants’ contributions to the cooperative’s property had been pecuniary or in kind.
18. On 7 December 1999 the Bitola Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s decision and rejected the applicants’ claim. It declared itself incompetent ratione materae (апсолутно ненадлежен) to decide the case. Relying on sections 30 and 32 of the Courts Act 1995, it stated that “the courts have jurisdiction to decide the legality of individual decisions in administrative and accounting disputes”. It concluded that they had “no jurisdiction to decide disputes as in the present case”.
19. On 14 February 2000 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law (ревизија) with the Supreme Court. They complained that the court below had not provided reasons for declaring itself incompetent to make a ruling on the matter ten years after the proceedings had started. Further, the court had not indicated which body would be competent to decide the case.
20. On 20 November 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal stating, inter alia, that:
“...when the court does not find itself competent to decide a case, but instead nominates another body, it must declare itself incompetent, revoke all actions taken during the proceedings and reject the claim. The present case concerns a claim for the annulment of a decision of an agricultural cooperative’s council to restructure itself as a socially-owned enterprise. There are therefore, no statutory grounds for the judicial review requested...”
21. On 19 February 2003 the decision was served on the applicants.